DOCSLIB.ORG

Logical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence Introduction to Description Logics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Logical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence Introduction to Description Logics Logical Aspects of Artificial Intelligence Introduction to Description Logics Stephane´ Demri [email protected] December 9th, 2019 What is in this part of the course? Introduction to Description Logics and Temporal Logics for Multi-Agent Aystems I Today: Introduction to description logics. I 16/12/2019: Tableaux calculi and complexity. I 06/01/2020: Introduction to temporal logics for multi-agent systems. I 13/01/2020: 14h00–16h00 Exam on this part of the course (slides allowed). but also first-order logic, modal logics, knowledge representation, etc... 2 What can you expect to learn? I Basics of description logic including ALC as well as ATL and variants. I Tableaux for ALC, model-checking techniques for ATL-like logics. I Complexity, decidability, expressive power results for logics dedicated to knowledge representation. 3 Background 1. Necessary background I Basics of first-order logic. I Basics of complexity theory. 2. Optional background I Basics of modal logics, temporal logics I Sequent-style proof systems. I Basics of model-checking. 4 Course material I Slides and exercises available on https://wikimpri.dptinfo.ens-cachan.fr/doku. php?id=cours:c-1-39 http://www.lsv.fr/˜demri/notes-de-cours.html I Slides available after each lecture. I Do not hesitate to contact me ([email protected]). 5 Material mainly based on the following documents I F. Baader, I. Horrocks, C. Lutz and U. Sattler. An introduction to Description Logic. Cambridge University Press, 2017. I Ivan Varzinczak’s slides (ESSLLI’18) I Ulrike Sattler & Thomas Schneider’s slides (ESSLLI’15). I S. Demri, V. Goranko, M. Lange. Temporal Logics in Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, 2016. 6 Other (online) ressources I Description Logic Complexity Navigator by Evgeny Zolin. http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/˜ezolin/dl/ I Proceedings of the Description Logic Workshops http://dl.kr.org/workshops/ I See also the proceedings of the international conferences: I Int. Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (IJCAI) I European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. (ECAI) I Int. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. (KR) 7 Plan of the lecture I Knowledge representation. I Basic description logic ALC. I Several extensions of ALC. I Relationships with first-order logic and modal logics. I Exercises session. 8 Knowledge representation 9 DLs: where they come from I First-order logic is not always the most natural language. 8x 9 y 8z ((P(x; y) ^ Q(y; z) ) (:Q(a; y) _ P(x; z)))) 8 x (Teacher(x) , Person(x)^9 y (Teaches(x; y)^Course(y))) I How to design user-friendly languages for knowledge representation ? I Concept definition from Description Logics. Teacher ≡ Person u 9Teaches:Course 10 Reasoning about . I Knowledge Epistemic Logics I Rules and obligations Deontic Logics I Programs Hoare Logics I Time Temporal Logics but also many-valued logics, non-monotonic logics, team logics, separation logics, etc. 11 Ontologies I Formal specification of some domain with concepts, objects, relationships between concepts, objects, etc. I Backbone of ontologies includes: I taxonomy (classification of objects), I axioms (to constrain the models of the defined terms). I Classification of medical terms: diseases, body parts, drugs, etc. I Well-known ontologies: I Medical ontology SNOMED-CT formalised with description logic EL + +. I NCI Thesaurus (National Cancer Institute, USA). I Gene ontology (world largest source of information on the functions of genes). I Free ontology editor Proteg´ e´ http://protege.stanford.edu/ 12 The classical student ontology I Natural language specification: I Employed students are students and employees. I Students are not taxpayers. I Employed students are taxpayers. I Employed students who are parents are not taxpayers. I To work for is to be employed by. I John is an employed student, John works for IBM. I Classes/relations/individuals. 13 Main ingredients in formal ontologies I Model of the world with classes within a domain, relationships between classes and instantiations of classes. I Formal: abstract model of some domain with (mathematical) semantics and reasoning tasks. I Classes or concepts: classes of objects with the domain of interest. (Employed student, Parent, Course) I Relations or roles: relationships between concepts. (being employed by, sibling-of) I Instances of classes and relations. I John is an employed student. I Mary works for IBM. 14 Early KR formalisms I Graphical formalisms easier to grasp and supposedly close to how knowledge is represented by human beings. I Large variety of semantical networks. I Often, lack of formal semantics (see tentatives with the knowledge representation system KL-ONE). 15 Why Description Logics? I Formal languages for concepts, relations and instances. I DLs have all one needs to formalise ontologies. I Computational properties. I Acceptable trade-off between expressivity and complexity. I Decidability and often tractability. I Implementation in tools of the main reasoning tasks. I A remarkable suite of languages and tools. See e.g. I OWL: Web Ontology Language. I Proteg´ e:´ ontology editor. I FaCT++: DL reasoner supporting OWL DL. 16 Description Logics and Knowledge representation I Description is a subfield of Knowledge Representation, itself a subfield of Artificial Intelligence. I Description Logic(s): I a research field, I a family of knowledge representation languages, I a member of the family. I Well-defined syntax with formal semantics, decision problems, algorithms, etc. 17 Basic description logic ALC 18 DLs: the core I Concept language. Person u 9Teaches:Course I Syntactic ingredients of the concept language: I Concept names for sets of elements, e.g. Person. I Role names interpreted by binary relations between objects, e.g. EmployedBy. I Concept constructors to build complex concepts, e.g. :, u, t, 9. I Basic terminology stored in a TBox. I Facts about individuals stored in an ABox. 19 Basic elements of the language I Concept names. def NC = fA1; A2;:::g Examples: Parent, Sister, Student I Role names. def NR = fr1; r2;:::g Examples: EmployedBy, MotherOf I Individual names. def NI = fa1; a2;:::g Examples: Mary, Alice, John 20 Boolean constructors & role restrictions I Boolean constructors. I Concept negation : (class complement) I Concept conjunction u (class intersection) I Concept disjunction t (class union) I Role restrictions. I Existential restriction 9 (at least one related individual) I Value restriction 8 (all related individuals) I Many more constructors exist, see forthcoming ALC extensions. I For modal logicians, :; u; t; 9; 8 ∼ :; ^; _; 3; 2 21 Complex concepts in ALC I ALC: Attributive Concept Language with Complements. I Complex concepts. C ::= > j ? j A j :C j C u C j C t C j 9r:C j 8r:C; where A 2 NC and r 2 NR. I Examples of complex concepts: I Student u :9Pays:Tax I 9MotherOf:(9MotherOf:A) I Syntax errors in Student t 8:Tax 89MotherOf:Mary def I C ) D = :C t D. 22 Interpretation I Concept/role/individual ∼ unary predicate/binary predicate/constant. def I I I Interpretation I = (∆ ; · ) I I ∆ : non-empty set (the domain). I I · : interpretation function such that AI ⊆ ∆I r I ⊆ ∆I × ∆I aI 2 ∆I I I A priori, ∆ is arbitrary and I can be viewed as a first-order model for unary and binary predicate symbols and constants. 23 Semantics for complex concepts >I =def ∆I ?I =def ; (:C)I =def ∆I n CI I def I I (C1 t C2) = C1 [ C2 I def I I (C1 u C2) = C1 \ C2 (9r:C)I =def fa 2 ∆I j r I (a) \ CI 6= ;g (8r:C)I =def fa 2 ∆I j r I (a) ⊆ CI g (R(a) =def fb j (a; b) 2 Rg) I I In modal logic lingua, a 2 C corresponds to I; a j= C. 24 Graphical representation Teaches C2 b Course Course Person Teaches Teaches a C1 Person Course Teacher I I ∆ = fa; b; C1; C2g. I I Teaches = f(a; C1); (a; C2); (b; b)g. I I I Person = fa; bg, Course = fC1; C2; bg. I I a 2 (8Teaches:Course) . 25 Concept satisfiability problem I Concept satisfiability problem: Input: A (complex) concept C in ALC. Question: Is there an interpretation I = (∆I ; ·I ) such that CI 6= ;? I This corresponds to the standard formulation for the satisfiability problem (in modal logics, temporal logics, etc.). I The concept satisfiability problem for ALC is PSPACE-complete. I ALC has the finite interpretation property: every satisfiable concept has an interpretation with a finite domain. 26 Statements I Concept inclusion. Teachers are persons. Employed students are employees. I Concept and role membership. Mary is a student. Alice is a teacher. Laura teaches the course “Automata Theory”. I Statements are not concepts and express properties of concepts, roles and individuals. 27 General concept inclusion (GCI) I Expressions of the form C v D are called general concept inclusion. I Intuitive meaning: I D subsumes C. I C is more specific than D. I Example: Employee v 9WorksFor:>. def I I I Satisfaction relation: I j= C v D , C ⊆ D . I C v D understood as a global statement about I. 28 Concept equivalence I C v D and D v C abbreviated by C ≡ D called concept equivalence. def I I I Satisfaction relation: I j= C ≡ D , C = D . I Concept definition (A 2 NC is a concept name) A ≡ C I > ≡ (:Student t Student). 29 Subsumption problem I Subsumption problem: Input: A GCI C v D with C; D 2 ALC. Question: Is it the case that for all interpretations I, we have I j= C v D? I C v D is “not valid” iff C u :D is satisfiable. I As coPSPACE =PSPACE, the subsumption problem for ALC is PSPACE-complete too.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schema.Org As a Description Logic
    Schema.org as a Description Logic Andre Hernich1, Carsten Lutz2, Ana Ozaki1 and Frank Wolter1 1University of Liverpool, UK 2University of Bremen, Germany fandre.hernich, anaozaki, [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Patel-Schneider [2014] develops an ontology language for Schema.org with a formal syntax and semantics that, apart Schema.org is an initiative by the major search en- from some details, can be regarded as a fragment of OWL DL. gine providers Bing, Google, Yahoo!, and Yandex that provides a collection of ontologies which web- In this paper, we abstract slightly further and view the masters can use to mark up their pages. Schema.org Schema.org ontology language as a DL, in line with the for- comes without a formal language definition and malization by Patel-Schneider. Thus, what Schema.org calls a without a clear semantics. We formalize the lan- type becomes a concept name and a property becomes a role guage of Schema.org as a Description Logic (DL) name. The main characteristics of the resulting ‘Schema.org and study the complexity of querying data using DL’ are that (i) the language is very restricted, allowing only (unions of) conjunctive queries in the presence of inclusions between concept and role names, domain and range ontologies formulated in this DL (from several per- restrictions, nominals, and datatypes; (ii) ranges and domains spectives). While querying is intractable in general, of roles can be restricted to disjunctions of concept names (pos- we identify various cases in which it is tractable and sibly mixed with datatypes in range restrictions) and nominals where queries are even rewritable into FO queries are used in ‘one-of enumerations’ which also constitute a form or datalog programs.
    [Show full text]
  • A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗
    A Logical Framework for Modularity of Ontologies∗ Bernardo Cuenca Grau, Ian Horrocks, Yevgeny Kazakov and Ulrike Sattler The University of Manchester School of Computer Science Manchester, M13 9PL, UK {bcg, horrocks, ykazakov, sattler }@cs.man.ac.uk Abstract ontology itself by possibly reusing the meaning of external symbols. Hence by merging an ontology with external on- Modularity is a key requirement for collaborative tologies we import the meaning of its external symbols to de- ontology engineering and for distributed ontology fine the meaning of its local symbols. reuse on the Web. Modern ontology languages, To make this idea work, we need to impose certain con- such as OWL, are logic-based, and thus a useful straints on the usage of the external signature: in particular, notion of modularity needs to take the semantics of merging ontologies should be “safe” in the sense that they ontologies and their implications into account. We do not produce unexpected results such as new inconsisten- propose a logic-based notion of modularity that al- cies or subsumptions between imported symbols. To achieve lows the modeler to specify the external signature this kind of safety, we use the notion of conservative exten- of their ontology, whose symbols are assumed to sions to define modularity of ontologies, and then prove that be defined in some other ontology. We define two a property of some ontologies, called locality, can be used restrictions on the usage of the external signature, to achieve modularity. More precisely, we define two no- a syntactic and a slightly less restrictive, seman- tions of locality for SHIQ TBoxes: (i) a tractable syntac- tic one, each of which is decidable and guarantees tic one which can be used to provide guidance in ontology a certain kind of “black-box” behavior, which en- editing tools, and (ii) a more general semantic one which can ables the controlled merging of ontologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontologies and Description Logics
    Symbolic and structural models for image understanding Part II: Ontologies and description logics Jamal Atif - Isabelle Bloch - Céline Hudelot IJCAI 2016 1 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding Outline 1 What is an ontology ? 2 Ontologies for image understanding: overview 3 Description Logics 4 Description Logics for image understanding 5 Conclusion What is an ontology ? What is an ontology ? Example from F. Gandon, WIMMICS Team, INRIA What is the last document that you have read? Documents 3 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition Ontology ethymology: ontos (being, that which is) + logos (science, study, theory) Philosophy Study of the nature of being, becoming and reality. Study of the basic categories of being and their relations. Computer Science Formal representation of a domain of discourse. Explicit specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95]. Ref: [Guarino 09] 4 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? Ontologies: Definition ontology Formal, explicit (and shared) specification of a conceptualization [Gruber 95, Studer 98] Formal, explicit specification: a formal language is used to refer to the elements of the conceptualization, e.g. description logics Conceptualization: Objects, concepts and other entities and their relationships Concept Relation Denoted by: Denoted by: a name a name a meaning (intensional definition) an intension a set of denoted objects (extensional an extension definition) 5 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C. Hudelot Image Understanding What is an ontology ? The different types of ontologies According to their expressivity Source : [Uschold 04] 6 / 72 J. Atif, I. Bloch, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗
    Deciding Semantic Matching of Stateless Services∗ Duncan Hull†, Evgeny Zolin†, Andrey Bovykin‡, Ian Horrocks†, Ulrike Sattler†, and Robert Stevens† School of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science, † ‡ University of Manchester, UK University of Liverpool, UK Abstract specifying automated reasoning algorithms for such stateful service descriptions is basically impossible in the presence We present a novel approach to describe and reason about stateless information processing services. It can of any expressive ontology (Baader et al. 2005). Stateless- be seen as an extension of standard descriptions which ness implies that we do not need to formulate pre- and post- makes explicit the relationship between inputs and out- conditions since our services do not change the world. puts and takes into account OWL ontologies to fix the The question we are interested in here is how to help the meaning of the terms used in a service description. This biologist to find a service he or she is looking for, i.e., a allows us to define a notion of matching between ser- service that works with inputs and outputs the biologist can vices which yields high precision and recall for service provide/accept, and that provides the required functionality. location. We explain why matching is decidable, and The growing number of publicly available biomedical web provide biomedical example services to illustrate the utility of our approach. services, 3000 as of February 2006, required better match- ing techniques to locate services. Thus, we are concerned with the question of how to describe a service request Q Introduction and service advertisements Si such that the notion of a ser- Understanding the data generated from genome sequenc- vice S matching the request Q can be defined in a “useful” ing projects like the Human Genome Project is recognised way.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations
    Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations Evan Patterson Department of Statistics, Stanford University Abstract We introduce the relational ontology log, or relational olog, a knowledge representation system based on the category of sets and relations. It is inspired by Spivak and Kent’s olog, a recent categorical framework for knowledge representation. Relational ologs interpolate between ologs and description logic, the dominant formalism for knowledge representation today. In this paper, we investigate relational ologs both for their own sake and to gain insight into the relationship between the algebraic and logical approaches to knowledge representation. On a practical level, we show by example that relational ologs have a friendly and intuitive—yet fully precise—graphical syntax, derived from the string diagrams of monoidal categories. We explain several other useful features of relational ologs not possessed by most description logics, such as a type system and a rich, flexible notion of instance data. In a more theoretical vein, we draw on categorical logic to show how relational ologs can be translated to and from logical theories in a fragment of first-order logic. Although we make extensive use of categorical language, this paper is designed to be self-contained and has considerable expository content. The only prerequisites are knowledge of first-order logic and the rudiments of category theory. 1. Introduction arXiv:1706.00526v2 [cs.AI] 1 Nov 2017 The representation of human knowledge in computable form is among the oldest and most fundamental problems of artificial intelligence. Several recent trends are stimulating continued research in the field of knowledge representation (KR).
    [Show full text]
  • THE DATA COMPLEXITY of DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES in Recent Years, the Use of Ontologies to Access Instance Data Has Become In
    THE DATA COMPLEXITY OF DESCRIPTION LOGIC ONTOLOGIES CARSTEN LUTZ AND FRANK WOLTER University of Bremen, Germany e-mail address: [email protected] University of Liverpool e-mail address: [email protected] ABSTRACT. We analyze the data complexity of ontology-mediated querying where the ontologies are formulated in a description logic (DL) of the ALC family and queries are conjunctive queries, positive existential queries, or acyclic conjunctive queries. Our approach is non-uniform in the sense that we aim to understand the complexity of each single ontology instead of for all ontologies for- mulated in a certain language. While doing so, we quantify over the queries and are interested, for example, in the question whether all queries can be evaluated in polynomial time w.r.t. a given on- tology. Our results include a PTIME/CONP-dichotomy for ontologies of depth one in the description logic ALCFI, the same dichotomy for ALC- and ALCI-ontologies of unrestricted depth, and the non-existence of such a dichotomy for ALCF-ontologies. For the latter DL, we additionally show that it is undecidable whether a given ontology admits PTIME query evaluation. We also consider the connection between PTIME query evaluation and rewritability into (monadic) Datalog. 1. INTRODUCTION In recent years, the use of ontologies to access instance data has become increasingly popular [PLC+08, KZ14, BO15]. The general idea is that an ontology provides domain knowledge and an enriched vocabulary for querying, thus serving as an interface between the query and the data, and enabling the derivation of additional facts. In this emerging area, called ontology-mediated querying, it is a central research goal to identify ontology languages for which query evaluation scales to large amounts of instance data.
    [Show full text]
  • Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM
    Proceedings, Fifteenth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2016) Complexity of the Description Logic ALCM Monica´ Martinez and Edelweis Rohrer Paula Severi Instituto de Computacion,´ Facultad de Ingenier´ıa, Department of Computer Science, Universidad de la Republica,´ Uruguay University of Leicester, England Abstract in ALCM can be used for a knowledge base in ALC. Details of our ExpTime algorithm for ALCM along with In this paper we show that the problem of deciding the consis- proofs of correctness and the complexity result can be found tency of a knowledge base in the Description Logic ALCM is ExpTime-complete. The M stands for meta-modelling as in (Martinez, Rohrer, and Severi 2015). defined by Motz, Rohrer and Severi. To show our main result, we define an ExpTime Tableau algorithm as an extension of 2 A Flexible Meta-modelling Approach an algorithm for ALC by Nguyen and Szalas. A knowledge base in ALCM contains an Mbox besides of a Tbox and an Abox. An Mbox is a set of equalities of the form 1 Introduction a =m A where a is an individual and A is a concept (Motz, The main motivation of the present work is to study the com- Rohrer, and Severi 2015). Figure 1 shows an example of two plexity of meta-modelling as defined in (Motz, Rohrer, and ontologies separated by a horizontal line, where concepts are Severi 2014; 2015). No study of complexity has been done denoted by large ovals and individuals by bullets. The two so far for this approach and we would like to analyse if it ontologies conceptualize the same entities at different lev- increases the complexity of a given description logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology-Based Methods for Analyzing Life Science Data
    Habilitation a` Diriger des Recherches pr´esent´ee par Olivier Dameron Ontology-based methods for analyzing life science data Soutenue publiquement le 11 janvier 2016 devant le jury compos´ede Anita Burgun Professeur, Universit´eRen´eDescartes Paris Examinatrice Marie-Dominique Devignes Charg´eede recherches CNRS, LORIA Nancy Examinatrice Michel Dumontier Associate professor, Stanford University USA Rapporteur Christine Froidevaux Professeur, Universit´eParis Sud Rapporteure Fabien Gandon Directeur de recherches, Inria Sophia-Antipolis Rapporteur Anne Siegel Directrice de recherches CNRS, IRISA Rennes Examinatrice Alexandre Termier Professeur, Universit´ede Rennes 1 Examinateur 2 Contents 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Context ......................................... 10 1.2 Challenges . 11 1.3 Summary of the contributions . 14 1.4 Organization of the manuscript . 18 2 Reasoning based on hierarchies 21 2.1 Principle......................................... 21 2.1.1 RDF for describing data . 21 2.1.2 RDFS for describing types . 24 2.1.3 RDFS entailments . 26 2.1.4 Typical uses of RDFS entailments in life science . 26 2.1.5 Synthesis . 30 2.2 Case study: integrating diseases and pathways . 31 2.2.1 Context . 31 2.2.2 Objective . 32 2.2.3 Linking pathways and diseases using GO, KO and SNOMED-CT . 32 2.2.4 Querying associated diseases and pathways . 33 2.3 Methodology: Web services composition . 39 2.3.1 Context . 39 2.3.2 Objective . 40 2.3.3 Semantic compatibility of services parameters . 40 2.3.4 Algorithm for pairing services parameters . 40 2.4 Application: ontology-based query expansion with GO2PUB . 43 2.4.1 Context . 43 2.4.2 Objective .
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics
    Description Logics Franz Baader1, Ian Horrocks2, and Ulrike Sattler2 1 Institut f¨urTheoretische Informatik, TU Dresden, Germany [email protected] 2 Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK {horrocks,sattler}@cs.man.ac.uk Summary. In this chapter, we explain what description logics are and why they make good ontology languages. In particular, we introduce the description logic SHIQ, which has formed the basis of several well-known ontology languages, in- cluding OWL. We argue that, without the last decade of basic research in description logics, this family of knowledge representation languages could not have played such an important rˆolein this context. Description logic reasoning can be used both during the design phase, in order to improve the quality of ontologies, and in the deployment phase, in order to exploit the rich structure of ontologies and ontology based information. We discuss the extensions to SHIQ that are required for languages such as OWL and, finally, we sketch how novel reasoning services can support building DL knowledge bases. 1 Introduction The aim of this section is to give a brief introduction to description logics, and to argue why they are well-suited as ontology languages. In the remainder of the chapter we will put some flesh on this skeleton by providing more technical details with respect to the theory of description logics, and their relationship to state of the art ontology languages. More detail on these and other matters related to description logics can be found in [6]. Ontologies There have been many attempts to define what constitutes an ontology, per- haps the best known (at least amongst computer scientists) being due to Gruber: “an ontology is an explicit specification of a conceptualisation” [47].3 In this context, a conceptualisation means an abstract model of some aspect of the world, taking the form of a definition of the properties of important 3 This was later elaborated to “a formal specification of a shared conceptualisation” [21].
    [Show full text]
  • Description Logics—Basics, Applications, and More
    Description Logics|Basics, Applications, and More Ian Horrocks Information Management Group University of Manchester, UK Ulrike Sattler Teaching and Research Area for Theoretical Computer Science RWTH Aachen, Germany RWTH Aachen 1 Germany Overview of the Tutorial • History and Basics: Syntax, Semantics, ABoxes, Tboxes, Inference Problems and their interrelationship, and Relationship with other (logical) formalisms • Applications of DLs: ER-diagrams with i.com demo, ontologies, etc. including system demonstration • Reasoning Procedures: simple tableaux and why they work • Reasoning Procedures II: more complex tableaux, non-standard inference prob- lems • Complexity issues • Implementing/Optimising DL systems RWTH Aachen 2 Germany Description Logics • family of logic-based knowledge representation formalisms well-suited for the representation of and reasoning about ➠ terminological knowledge ➠ configurations ➠ ontologies ➠ database schemata { schema design, evolution, and query optimisation { source integration in heterogeneous databases/data warehouses { conceptual modelling of multidimensional aggregation ➠ : : : • descendents of semantics networks, frame-based systems, and KL-ONE • aka terminological KR systems, concept languages, etc. RWTH Aachen 3 Germany Architecture of a Standard DL System Knowledge Base I N Terminology F E I R Father = Man u 9 has child.>... N E T Human = Mammal. u Biped . N E Description C R E F Logic A Concrete Situation S C Y E John:Human u Father S John has child Bill . T . E M RWTH Aachen 4 Germany Introduction
    [Show full text]
  • Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives
    information Article Logic-Based Technologies for Intelligent Systems: State of the Art and Perspectives Roberta Calegari 1,* , Giovanni Ciatto 2 , Enrico Denti 3 and Andrea Omicini 2 1 Alma AI—Alma Mater Research Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40121 Bologna, Italy 2 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 47522 Cesena, Italy; [email protected] (G.C.); [email protected] (A.O.) 3 Dipartimento di Informatica–Scienza e Ingegneria (DISI), Alma Mater Studiorum–Università di Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 25 February 2020; Accepted: 18 March 2020; Published: 22 March 2020 Abstract: Together with the disruptive development of modern sub-symbolic approaches to artificial intelligence (AI), symbolic approaches to classical AI are re-gaining momentum, as more and more researchers exploit their potential to make AI more comprehensible, explainable, and therefore trustworthy. Since logic-based approaches lay at the core of symbolic AI, summarizing their state of the art is of paramount importance now more than ever, in order to identify trends, benefits, key features, gaps, and limitations of the techniques proposed so far, as well as to identify promising research perspectives. Along this line, this paper provides an overview of logic-based approaches and technologies by sketching their evolution and pointing out their main application areas. Future perspectives for exploitation of logic-based technologies are discussed as well, in order to identify those research fields that deserve more attention, considering the areas that already exploit logic-based approaches as well as those that are more likely to adopt logic-based approaches in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 11Th International Workshop on Ontology
    Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016) Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, Ryutaro Ichise To cite this version: Pavel Shvaiko, Jérôme Euzenat, Ernesto Jiménez-Ruiz, Michelle Cheatham, Oktie Hassanzadeh, et al.. Proceedings of the 11th International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2016). Ontology matching workshop, Kobe, Japan. No commercial editor., pp.1-252, 2016. hal-01421835 HAL Id: hal-01421835 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01421835 Submitted on 15 Jul 2019 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Ontology Matching OM-2016 Proceedings of the ISWC Workshop Introduction Ontology matching1 is a key interoperability enabler for the semantic web, as well as a useful tactic in some classical data integration tasks dealing with the semantic hetero- geneity problem. It takes ontologies as input and determines as output an alignment, that is, a set of correspondences between the semantically related entities of those on- tologies. These correspondences can be used for various tasks, such as ontology merg- ing, data translation, query answering or navigation on the web of data. Thus, matching ontologies enables the knowledge and data expressed in the matched ontologies to in- teroperate.
    [Show full text]